Welcome

Welcome to the POZ/AIDSmeds Community Forums, a round-the-clock discussion area for people with HIV/AIDS, their friends/family/caregivers, and
others concerned about HIV/AIDS. Click on the links below to browse our various forums; scroll down for a glance at the most recent posts; or join in the
conversation yourself by registering on the left side of this page.

Privacy Warning: Please realize that these forums are open to all, and are fully searchable via Google and other search engines. If you are HIV positive
and disclose this in our forums, then it is almost the same thing as telling the whole world (or at least the World Wide Web). If this concerns you, then do not use a
username or avatar that are self-identifying in any way. We do not allow the deletion of anything you post in these forums, so think before you post.

The information shared in these forums, by moderators and members, is designed to complement, not replace, the relationship between an individual and his/her own
physician.

All members of these forums are, by default, not considered to be licensed medical providers. If otherwise, users must clearly define themselves as such.

Forums members must behave at all times with respect and honesty. Posting guidelines, including time-out and banning policies, have been established by the moderators
of these forums. Click here for “Am I Infected?” posting guidelines. Click here for posting guidelines pertaining to all other POZ/AIDSmeds community forums.

We ask all forums members to provide references for health/medical/scientific information they provide, when it is not a personal experience being discussed. Please
provide hyperlinks with full URLs or full citations of published works not available via the Internet. Additionally, all forums members must post information which are
true and correct to their knowledge.

So whaddya think, kids? Should the queens form offical royal families or no? Personally, I think it is an option that should be available to them if they want it. Others say no. So why or why not? I've got my own reasons why I currently think it's a valid and fair request. I'll spout off about it as the thread rolls along. Wanna hear from the rest of yunz...

Marriage -smarriage makes no difference to me. I think the most important thing is to be treated fairly under the law. Partners should be eligible for everything that a married couple get from tax breaks to social security benefits, etc. I think those would be won easier without pushing for marriage.

However as a professional wedding coordinator it certainly would open up a whole new market.

Woods

Logged

"Let us give pubicity to HV/AIDS and not hide it..." "One of the things destroying people with AIDS is the stigma we attach to it." Nelson Mandela

Andrew(who advocates loudly on your behalf to anyone who will listen, but still finds this shit funny as hell!)

Logged

LIFE is not a race to the grave with the intention of arriving safelyin a pretty and well-preserved body, but, rather to skid in broadside,thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming--WOW! WHAT ARIDE!!!

I see no logic-based reason that a heterosexual should have more rights under the law than I do. Religious arguments hold no water under civil rule.

100% concur with that statement. And to write discrimination into the Constitution of the Unites States is the ugliest thing a person can do to that document. I find it appalling people even consider the notion. Might as well take it out of its pretty little case and SHIT on it.

Logged

LIFE is not a race to the grave with the intention of arriving safelyin a pretty and well-preserved body, but, rather to skid in broadside,thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming--WOW! WHAT ARIDE!!!

As I've said: I don't really give a rat's fanny what any church would have to say or think about the validity of my relationships. I'm more interested in the concept of formally recognized unions for their legal clout. If straight people can run off to Vegas and get hitched by an Elvis impersonator or get wed via the results of a TV's audience phone-in poll, then gay men and women should be able to get a legally recognized union justice of the peace-style like everyone else. I think it signifies an umbrella issue to me...and I suspect that goes a long, long way toward understanding why it rattles the right so much. After all, once a same-sex relationship gains legal standing, it makes it much harder to uphold discriminations for things like employment and adoption, no?

When heterosexuals get married only at the Justice of the Peace it's still called "marriage" by the government Lwood. Nobody at Human Rights Campaign advocates forcing churches to conduct religious ceremonies against their wishes. That's simply a red herring you've been force fed by the Christianists.

TIMThere are a few states where marriage between same sex couples is actually LEGAL....but I guess you know that? Are you referring to getting MARRIED in a church? or are you talking about the civil/ legal issues?I have a copy of an ancient marrige ritual that is performed for two men.....I think its 16th century. I believe this was a ritual formalizing a committment of two individuals of the same sex.modified to add: oh i see its already gotten messy.

true, If the Mariage Reformers have a hair on their ass, theyll take on the issue all the way, and truly define it once and for all. All of the 'vegas drive thru weddings and mormon child brides need to be spotlighted with the same scrutiny.

Ill go out on a limb here and agree that some churches have the perogative not to recognize same sex unions or marriages. But the Government I think, should recognise Same sex partnerships as a legal matter... the mariage part is a matter of your spiritual thingie. but thats just my Ę.02

Logged

"Fortunately, I Keep My T Cells Numbered For Just Such An Emergency" -Either Foghorn Leghorn or Johnny Cash

I'm leaving that churchy issue open for anyone else's input, but me personally? I am only talking about it in the legally recognized sense. Just as I don't believe the church should be imposed on us, I don't think our positions should be imposed on the church either. Like Lwood said, marriage as a religious rite- let 'em have it.

::jumps on soap box:: AND FURTHERMORE !! Even if the church were to start opening up to gay marriage ceremonies, I doubt I would ever set foot in the door to have such a ceremony for myself done there. It's gonna take a lot more mea culpa and make-nice from them altogether to salve old wounds for me.

100% concur with that statement. And to write discrimination into the Constitution of the Unites States is the ugliest thing a person can do to that document. I find it appalling people even consider the notion. Might as well take it out of its pretty little case and SHIT on it.

Which this administration has done numerous times in pursuit of its various agendas and those of its base.

Thing is, "Marriage" (capital intentional) is a product of the social upheavals that swept Europe in the first half of the 19th century (in which property became more widely available thanks to the Indusrial Revolution). Peasants didn't marry, but they certainly formed life-long emotional bonds. Being as reliant upon English (and Protestant) culture as we are, it's sometimes difficult to understand the real "traditions" that we live with so ambivalently. The true historical reason why people chose to marry was to secure a dowry and a "legitimate" name for the children. Do any of those things still apply to our society?

The trappings of weddings are almost exclusively inventions of the Victorian middle-class, dimly remembered superstitions of a darker age forever immortalized as "romantic". We can ape them for irony, but to emulate such rubbish as our birthright seems retardaire. Instead of wasting political capitol trying to homestead such antique concepts (and afford the right a perfect wedge issue) why aren't we working toward full equality? Let them have their high masses and ugly "family values" rhetoric. But don't deny me the right to form legal relationships and name heirs as I choose (not that I have a pot to piss in).

I'll confess something I've never disclosed here before:In 1995 I met a guy who had just come out (at the age of 32). He was dopey and sweet but utterly unsuited to me emotionally or intellectually. I presumed that it would run its course in three months (as such things always seem to) and have fun while it lasted. At just about that three-month point, a condom broke and, although unaware of my status, basically felt as though I'd bought the farm. As he had no practical dealings as a gay man, all of his friends were straight (and breeding like cats). All my friends were dead or MIA, so they became our social outlets entirely.

A year later, after I'd fallen ill with two OIs, we tested and both came back poz. I was beside myself with guilt and despair, and he was as horrified (obviously) as I. We took the weekend off and went to Provincetown to try and get a grip. It was there that he asked me to "marry" him, at least in part to show his friends that our relationship was comparable to theirs, in part to show me that he'd "stick with" me "no matter what".

Those were the conditions under which I agreed to a farcical "commitment ceremony" in 1996 to someone whom I felt little passion but much responsibility. It had everything, including an arch of rainbow-colored balloons, a cake, and an all-night reception that was the talk of the neighborhood for some time.

We went to Paris on our "honeymoon", which creeped me out. Everything there reminded me of Jean-Marc, who had died just five years previously. Oh, and to show how "liberated" we were, he goaded and bated me into arranging a three-some with someone I'd have never considered, only to console him later that it didn't interfere with our intimacy or contradict our "vows".

I can only thank whatever arrangement of stars it was that the "commitment ceremony" wasn't legally binding at the time in Massachusetts, as the relationship eventually devolved into his phoning me with death-threats which the police here in SoFla refused to take seriously.

Brent(Who has a thousand tales to tell)

Logged

Blessed with brains, talent and gorgeous tits.

The revolutionary smart set reads The Spin Cycle at least once every day.

Jezzzzzzusss....Bucko. Thats a hard row to hoe. Sounds like ...."BRIDEZILLA"I have a story not totally unlike this one, Bucko. You are not alone my friend.

Anyone who has lived a life worth living has such swampy histories. Matty knows all about the idiotic farce that was Brent & Kenny and somehow endured for nine years, thanks in part to that retched ceremony, but I don't think I've ever told him about the actual "event".

The bottom line for me, is that even if "civil partnerships" are the name given to gay arraingments by the state eventually, then all non-religious recognition of same by heterosexuals MUST BE CALLED THAT TOO. If you, or anyone else, does not wish for it to be called "marriage" (i.e. the license given by the state, I'm NOT discussing religious issues which are separate, though for some reason folks here aren't completely getting that) then heterosexuals must go by the same word.

THAT is equality, and I won't accept some faux equality just so the breeders won't have wilting daisy fits. I used to be less strident about this fine detail of the issue, but once I thought about more I realized that the principle is full equality, not "something approaching" full equality.

There is no non-religious arguement that justifies banning gay marriage. If the churches don't want the gays, then they don't have to have the gays (though why any homosexual would want to go in a church even if the churches wanted them, I do not know), but they shouldn't dictate what the laws say. I am baffled why this is even a major issue. Shouldn't the government have better things do than try to dictate what goes on in the bedroom or who a person marries? Ironically, the attorney handling my dad's divorce is against gay marriage--it seems as if he'd be all for it since he will ultimately profit from that venture. I am hearing all these adds on the radio about how we need to lobby our state congressmen to "protect" marriage. Frankly, we heterosexuals have screwed up marriage enough, so it seems as though marriage should be "protected" from us as well. Homosexuals deserve the same legal rights as anyone else. If they want to get married in the legal sense, they should.

There is no non-religious argument that justifies banning gay marriage. If the churches don't want the gays, then they don't have to have the gays (though why any homosexual would want to go in a church even if the churches wanted them, I do not know), but they shouldn't dictate what the laws say. I am baffled why this is even a major issue. Shouldn't the government have better things do than try to dictate what goes on in the bedroom or who a person marries? Ironically, the attorney handling my dad's divorce is against gay marriage--it seems as if he'd be all for it since he will ultimately profit from that venture. I am hearing all these adds on the radio about how we need to lobby our state congressmen to "protect" marriage. Frankly, we heterosexuals have screwed up marriage enough, so it seems as though marriage should be "protected" from us as well. Homosexuals deserve the same legal rights as anyone else. If they want to get married in the legal sense, they should.

But Philly-What I don't understand is how you think that stridency will lead to any relent on the part of the Religious Right and their equally strident insistence to write equality out of the constitution. If you tilt at the word-windmills while undercutting the hard work done by many (straight) legislators attempting to find a solution to full equality in the real world we live in, we'll never win.

And, no, I'm not saying that the back of the bus gets us there at the same time as the front. But I find such arguments counter-intuitive and counter-productive to the goals we share. Let them have their words or choose to avoid the stain of our presence by finding another word for us. If the result's the same, then de-facto equality is real.

I actually think that the whole concept of marriage should be thrown on the dumpheap. It has no relevance in the world we all (straights and gays) live in. And it is the height of hypocrisy on the part of the right to blame any problems with the institution of marriage on our laps. Newt Gingrich is on his third wife, for fux sake. I for one can attest that I had nothing to do with his two previous failures.

With the word "marriage" comes two other big words, "divorce" and "contraception". The church wants to own these words? Let 'em have 'em and enforce them on their congregations. I frankly can't imagine how any of them will or should ever apply to me.

Brent(Who lives outside of society's constraints)

Logged

Blessed with brains, talent and gorgeous tits.

The revolutionary smart set reads The Spin Cycle at least once every day.

"I don't care what anyone says. Two blokes and a cocker-spaniel do not constitute a family."Hon. Paul Keating, Prime Minister of Australia 1991-1996.

Great man Paul Keating. Arrogant and bombastic, PJK was the last true visionary to lead Australia. Keating famously made this comment in 1995, shortly after the then Federal Cabinet approved legislation to override anti-sodomy laws in the State of Tasmania.

And of course PJK was spot on. No matter how many sequinned twinks and motorcycle augemented lesbians parade through the cities of the West to the heart lifting strains of Sister Sledge, the straights are never going to give us marriage nor recognise our relationships as being a form of family.

And nor should we want them to. We can do so much better.

I placed my views on gay marriage on the record sometime ago. I oppose it. Strongly. In fact I oppose all forms of marriage. So let's consider why.

Marriage is an institution based on propertyIt's that simple, people. If you think that marriage is about love then it's time to put the meth pipe down. Marriage confers a privileged property status on one section of the community to the detriment of others. Matty the Damned has never understood gays and lesbians feel the need to reduce their relationships to tawdry issues of who owns what, and whether it's Brenda or Andrea who gets the tabby once true love dies.

It's time that people were permitted to conduct their property arrangements however they see fit. If you want to name your brother/sister/partner/husband/favourite whore as your next of kin - then go for it. Just because you've shacked with someone for the last dreary twenty years shouldn't affect this.

Gay Marriage is a distraction from the real issues facing gays and lesbiansIt amuses me that wherever I go, the moderate lesbigays advance marriage as some sort of holy grail which will finally announce our wholesome worth as a people. Valuable resources and political effort that could go into say fighting for the medical and welfare rights of people with AIDS (remember them?) or addressing the horrendous predicament of our queer brothers and sisters in Iran, Russia, Jamaica or China (just to name a few places) are squandered for so the Bed and Breakfast crowd in Darlinghurst or scenic Vermont can avoid the real issues.

Gay marriage is a clarion call to the Religious Right and is used by the conservative elites to wedge the progressive side of politics and to unify their own divided ranks.

Similarly it's time recognise what "civil unions" really are. The retarded cousin of gay marriage, the matter of civil unions is a fop by the Centre Left to buy our votes/support and keep us quiet. It's the sort of second best arrangement that the Mattachine Society would have settled for in the 1950's.

Second best is never good enough, except maybe for Log Cabin republicans.

It's time to write our own rulesThe entire idea of being gay or lesbian is that we are free from the horrible blandness of heterosexual dominated society. And before people start shrieking that I'm ragging on the straights, I'm not. I'm referring to a society which is as oppressive for many heteros as it is for us queers.

Rather than aping their exploitative power and property structures, we should be advancing an agenda which recognises the worth of all individuals (even Queenslanders, Texans and the Welsh) and allows said individuals to live how they want, both emotionally and materially free from the will of the Establishment.

"I don't care what anyone says. Two blokes and a cocker-spaniel do not constitute a family."Hon. Paul Keating, Prime Minister of Australia 1991-1996.

Great man Paul Keating. Arrogant and bombastic, PJK was the last true visionary to lead Australia. Keating famously made this comment in 1995, shortly after the then Federal Cabinet approved legislation to override anti-sodomy laws in the State of Tasmania.

And of course PJK was spot on. No matter how many sequinned twinks and motorcycle augemented lesbians parade through the cities of the West to the heart lifting strains of Sister Sledge, the straights are never going to give us marriage nor recognise our relationships as being a form of family.

And nor should we want them to. We can do so much better.

I placed my views on gay marriage on the record sometime ago. I oppose it. Strongly. In fact I oppose all forms of marriage. So let's consider why.

Marriage is an institution based on propertyIt's that simple, people. If you think that marriage is about love then it's time to put the meth pipe down. Marriage confers a privileged property status on one section of the community to the detriment of others. Matty the Damned has never understood gays and lesbians feel the need to reduce their relationships to tawdry issues of who owns what, and whether it's Brenda or Andrea who gets the tabby once true love dies.

It's time that people were permitted to conduct their property arrangements however they see fit. If you want to name your brother/sister/partner/husband/favourite whore as your next of kin - then go for it. Just because you've shacked with someone for the last dreary twenty years shouldn't affect this.

Gay Marriage is a distraction from the real issues facing gays and lesbiansIt amuses me that wherever I go, the moderate lesbigays advance marriage as some sort of holy grail which will finally announce our wholesome worth as a people. Valuable resources and political effort that could go into say fighting for the medical and welfare rights of people with AIDS (remember them?) or addressing the horrendous predicament of our queer brothers and sisters in Iran, Russia, Jamaica or China (just to name a few places) are squandered for so the Bed and Breakfast crowd in Darlinghurst or scenic Vermont can avoid the real issues.

Gay marriage is a clarion call to the Religious Right and is used by the conservative elites to wedge the progressive side of politics and to unify their own divided ranks.

Similarly it's time recognise what "civil unions" really are. The retarded cousin of gay marriage, the matter of civil unions is a fop by the Centre Left to buy our votes/support and keep us quiet. It's the sort of second best arrangement that the Mattachine Society would have settled for in the 1950's.

Second best is never good enough, except maybe for Log Cabin republicans.

It's time to write our own rulesThe entire idea of being gay or lesbian is that we are free from the horrible blandness of heterosexual dominated society. And before people start shrieking that I'm ragging on the straights, I'm not. I'm referring to a society which is as oppressive for many heteros as it is for us queers.

Rather than aping their exploitative power and property structures, we should be advancing an agenda which recognises the worth of all individuals (even Queenslanders, Texans and the Welsh) and allows said individuals to live how they want, both emotionally and materially free from the will of the Establishment.

MtD

Basically, Matty said everything that had to be said about the subject. I would only add that even though I am against gay marriage for myself, I would fight for gays who would like to have it done for them!I could endure a lot of things in this life. Stand in front of a priest/pastor in a church to get married would not be one of those things, pluuuuuuse!

The legal unions thing becomes a much more real issue if one of those AIDS people with medical and welfare issues (and yes, I remember them. I am one.) gets hospitalized and his family won't let his significant other in to see him. Or he passes away and the family takes everything...leaving the partner with nothing.

While the model Matty proposes is all wonderful and revolutionary, I think working within the model of the world we all actually live in might offer more protection for people in the meantime, in the here and now. Then we can set about completely redesigning how the world works. Marriage may very well be a crap institution, but it is a part of the framework society currently functions within. I would agree that it is time that people were allowed to design their property arrangements and such however they see fit. If that was the case, this whole thing would be much less of an issue. Agreed. I just think we have a much better shot of getting a more even standing under the current laws of the land by attaining a legally recognized union than we do of somehow convincing the world at large to abandon such unions.

I just don't see that happening. Nor do I think that the presence of issue A automatically renders issues B, C and D completely moot. Things have a way of tying in with one another.

this reminds me of a uniquely gross moment that happened with my first Boyfriend. Following our usual Morning Sex, he excused himself to the bathroom...five minutes later he dragged me to the crapper by my hand, pointed to the bowl and said " Look, he has your nose and my chin "

I cant really say I miss those fun little moments..

Logged

"Fortunately, I Keep My T Cells Numbered For Just Such An Emergency" -Either Foghorn Leghorn or Johnny Cash

this reminds me of a uniquely gross moment that happened with my first Boyfriend. Following our usual Morning Sex, he excused himself to the bathroom...five minutes later he dragged me to the crapper by my hand, pointed to the bowl and said " Look, he has your nose and my chin "

ooh good one . although it really does relate to the mariage topic. I just love it when a thread weaves into something beautifull .. baby Hanky not withstanding.

Im considering making him something special as a Welcome Home present when he gets out... I was thinking of a set of steak Shanks and maybe a DVD of Shawshank Redemption and the Green Mile. or would that be tacky ?

Logged

"Fortunately, I Keep My T Cells Numbered For Just Such An Emergency" -Either Foghorn Leghorn or Johnny Cash

Im considering making him something special as a Welcome Home present when he gets out... I was thinking of a set of steak Shanks and maybe a DVD of Shawshank Redemption and the Green Mile. or would that be tacky ?

actually, I wanted to do that after his FIRST stretch in the Pen. I got the idea when guys started making homemade knives out if all kinds of shit in order to cut open paper rolls at the printing company I used to work for. Every time I see one of those documentaries about prison life I get new ideas .For instance I didnt know that the term 'Shank' comes from the fact that prisoners used to sharpen shank bones into knives. So simple a Caveman could do it.

and yes Im aware that this is a pretty outrageous Hijack of a thread about Gay Mariage winding up in a 'How To guide for Jailhouse Weapons' but really if you look at the Big Picture its all related.

Logged

"Fortunately, I Keep My T Cells Numbered For Just Such An Emergency" -Either Foghorn Leghorn or Johnny Cash

But Philly-What I don't understand is how you think that stridency will lead to any relent on the part of the Religious Right and their equally strident insistence to write equality out of the constitution. If you tilt at the word-windmills while undercutting the hard work done by many (straight) legislators attempting to find a solution to full equality in the real world we live in, we'll never win.

And, no, I'm not saying that the back of the bus gets us there at the same time as the front. But I find such arguments counter-intuitive and counter-productive to the goals we share. Let them have their words or choose to avoid the stain of our presence by finding another word for us. If the result's the same, then de-facto equality is real.

I'm not sure de-facto can be trusted to be real.

An article today in the New York Times about how few couples have registered for New Jersey's new "de-facto" bs bears this out -- a whopping 229 couples in the first month in a state of 9 million.

No matter whether you want to get married or not, banning gay marriage in any form is discrimination and that means banning or laws against gay marriage should be illegal. Claiming gay marriage is some threat to traditional male/female marriage is bogus, and neither US political party has the balls to stand up for those discriminated against.But lewis says it besthttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7ucnO3d2oY

First... does anyone ask themselves why marriage exists in the first place in the modern world?

We're not transferring huge tracts of land between families anymore... the only vestige of dowries is the fact that traditionally, the bride's family pays for the wedding, and being an illegitimate child is no longer the social stigma it once was.

Thus, the institution today really only provides certain state-conferred contractual benefits in the modern age of women's rights and the middle class. I'm sure everyone is familiar with many of these rights, there are more than a thousand. They run the gamut from joint-filing of bankruptcy to hospital visitation rights.

I say, get rid of all of them for everyone.

As in... abolish state-recognized marriage.

It's completely absurd and a violation of everyone's rights to say that one has to be contractually bound to another human to receive these privileges from the state.

What I would like to see is people given to freedom to confer the same privileges onto whomever they desire without the marriage contract.

If you still want to get married in the Catholic, Unitarian, Orthodox or whatever tradition you want to... go for it. But you don't get anything special from the state for it.

And that's the rub. It's the state-conferred contractual recognition and benefits, not the sanctity or magic of marriage. Agreed. Boy howdy, agreed. That's a great mantra: Let's abolish state-recognized marriage! Anyone want to start a pool on that happening? I'm supporting the cause based on the protection some people might be able to claim by having it. It's the potential empowerment provided that would be sacred to me, not the ceremony.

The state should have never gotten their little paws into marriage. Now that they have....

And that's the rub. It's the state-conferred contractual recognition and benefits, not the sanctity or magic of marriage. Agreed. Boy howdy, agreed. That's a great mantra: Let's abolish state-recognized marriage! Anyone want to start a pool on that happening? I'm supporting the cause based on the protection some people might be able to claim by having it. It's the potential empowerment provided that would be sacred to me, not the ceremony.

The state should have never gotten their little paws into marriage. Now that they have....

I know it will never happen.

But I think it's the only sensible action for a modern society to take.

Just like that whole "don't put so much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere" thing is the only sensible action for a modern society to take.

We really need to smash all the old paradigms... the past fifty years have created a lot of anachronistic institutions and marriage is one of them.

Hell, if it still mattered... more than half of them wouldn't end up in divorce and Europe wouldn't have 31.6% of children born to unwed mothers.

I agree there should be no state granted rights for any special unions,marriages,or groups, but to want to end marriage,which is the basis of the family is utterly absurd and the kind of thought and speech that fuels the fear of the far right and those who want to ban gay marriage.Europe and US quasi socialist states are all in danger of fading due to lack of children, produced by families. How do we pay for the ponzi schemes of Social Security and other entitlement plans with less and less children every year? The only thing that is keeping the US in the game is we have so many people who want to live here(immigrants). Unfortunately I think we are gonna see more and more special tax treatment for families that produce children simply because the government needs more taxpayers.Without the family,our society and the human race would cease to exist.

I've posted my views on this before so I'll just summarize. I don't believe in gay marriage because:

1. I want government out of my bedroom. By petitioning for marriage and domestic partnerships we are asking for government intervention.2. If people want to protect their relationship they can go to a lawyer and draw up contracts.3. The best solution to create equality in terms of taxes and immigration is to eliminate tax breaks for married couples and change immigration policies. People who have children, regardless of marital status, are the ones who deserve tax breaks.4. Marriage is inherently tied to religious institutions. If gays stop petitioning for marriage it will take a major weapon out of the religious right's arsenal.5. The male-male relationship dynamic is different than male-female or female-female. Gays and lesbians have the opportunity to create relationships that work for our own needs rather than trying to pattern ourselves after heterosexuals.

I've been in a gay relationship for almost 15 years. We are not together because of a government sanctioned agreement or a vow before God and the community. We are not together for the kids, for a tax break, for citizenship, for the house or because our families want us to be together. We are together each day because we want to be. When we no longer want to be we will go our separate ways without lawyers milking us for thousands of dollars.

I agree there should be no state granted rights for any special unions,marriages,or groups, but to want to end marriage,which is the basis of the family is utterly absurd and the kind of thought and speech that fuels the fear of the far right and those who want to ban gay marriage.Europe and US quasi socialist states are all in danger of fading due to lack of children, produced by families. How do we pay for the ponzi schemes of Social Security and other entitlement plans with less and less children every year? The only thing that is keeping the US in the game is we have so many people who want to live here(immigrants). Unfortunately I think we are gonna see more and more special tax treatment for families that produce children simply because the government needs more taxpayers.Without the family,our society and the human race would cease to exist.

I'm not for abolishing marriage as it exists as a religious institution. That would mean the state prying into religious matters, where it quite simply has no business doing so.

If people want to get married in whatever religion they want, I say go for it.

I'd just like to see all the privileges and rights given to married couples by the state (and the state alone) abolished.

Edited to add: Jack is probably right. We're going to end up paying people to have kids in the next few decades because not enough people are doing so.

Maybe individuals who produce productive offspring that will pay taxes to keep the socialist state alive deserve some extra tax treatment. I have spent the last 20 years and hundreds of thousands of dollars(of my own money)educating two offspring who will be paying a high rate of taxes next year . I have foregone many luxuries and had to change my lifestyle to accomplish this, shouldn't the government want more people to do this?For the record, I am a proponent of a flat tax system with absolutely no deductions for anyone. No idiotic mortgage deduction, or any special tax treatment for married couples, or anyone.

I was completely unaware there was such a dearth of children in the U.S. Wow.

I absolutely refuse to believe that the abolishment of marriage would bring about the destruction of mankind. That sounds just like that thing right-wingers always say about us cocksuckers: If people are allowed to hiney-poke and weenie touch unrestrained, the human race will cease to exist!

Malarkey.

Why? Because people like to fuck...and enough people would still do so to keep the population afloat with our without a piece of paper from city hall. And the same goes for unrestrained buttsex. We queens still represent a fraction of the population at large, and there are more than enough guys wantin' to tap some hot gal to keep us in babies for ages to come.

Good idea, lets abolish marriage. Traditional male/female marriage is the basis of our society. You dont think abolishing marriage would damage our society? Without marriage,you would not have families. You are kidding,right?

apparently you haven't been married, many may choose death over no chance of divorce.What I meant earlier by lack of children is American families of US origin are having less children, but immigrants legal and illegal are making up much of the growth. You just dont see many families having more than two or three children since mid 80s, its just too fucking expensive. Unless you have raised children you have no idea what it costs and the sacrifices you make everyday. I am not saying everyone needs to do it or its for everyone, but just that its a 24/7 job that never,ever ends. If you see someone with 5 kids today they are the freaks of the neighborhood and oddity.

Let the record show I'm not for getting rid of marriage. I think heterosexual marriage makes many people very happy and helps provide a stable environment for children. Just because it doesn't always last until death doesn't mean marriage doesn't work. I think gays and lesbians have different kinds of relationships with different needs.

Without marriage,you wouldn't have families. Without families you have no society. Without families you have no history. I dont see how you can doubt that. I came to acceptance of gay marriage as a matter simple fairness and being against it is simply discrimination and that is illegal. But the last few posts are exactly what the far right radicals have been saying,there are many who support gay marriage as some kind of trojan horse to destroy the institution of traditional marriage and the families those marriages produce. I never believed this to be true,but it seems that is what some are saying

Without marriage,you wouldn't have families. Without families you have no society. Without families you have no history. I dont see how you can doubt that. I came to acceptance of gay marriage as a matter simple fairness and being against it is simply discrimination and that is illegal. But the last few posts are exactly what the far right radicals have been saying,there are many who support gay marriage as some kind of trojan horse to destroy the institution of traditional marriage and the families those marriages produce. I never believed this to be true,but it seems that is what some are saying

So... a single, unwed mother with two kids.

Is that a family?

Or is a divorced father raising a child a family?

Or a man and a woman who choose to live together but are not married and who have children... are they a family?

I still fail to see where marriage is a necessary ingredient in having a family.

Look a little more closely at marriage, and a few things come to light. The first is that no matter what the right wing says, marriage in the US is a government thing, not religious. If you get married without filing the proper paperwork, fees, etc, you "marriage" will not be recognized by any local, state. or federal government organization. Period. The second thing that the Christian Right never stops to think about, or more appropriately, doesn't want you to think about, is this: Marriage has an abysmal failure rate. Over 50% of all marriages end in divorce, and out of the ones that stay together, how many are actually a good and productive union, how many are happy marriages? Does 50% sound reasonable? If half of the marriages that stay together are unhappy, then that would give the institution of marriage a stunning failure rate of 75% What, exactly are these assholes "protecting"? No one has ever come up with a coherent argument that can demonstrate exactly HOW gay marriage jeopardizes heterosexual marriage. I Have yet to see divorce papers show that the cause of divorce was because two lesbians down the street got married. The only thing that can threaten a marriage is the behavior of the two people in it. It really is as simple as that.

HA! I also love to hear the typical response: Yes, marriage is in a bad way. Therefore, there's no good in mucking it up even further by letting the gays in on it.

Which brings me to another point: I am completely over how legislation with regard to gays and lesbians is slanted in this country. I always thought that the ideal was along the lines of "innocent unless proven guilty" (note unless, not until...a pet peeve of mine since "until" infers that guilt will eventually be found). With us queer folk, there is always a sense of presumed "guilt". The onus is always on us to prove that we aren't a menace or that we do deserve validation- rather than the other way around. It burns my burger to no end. We have to carry the burden to prove why we SHOULD be afforded legal protections rather than it having to be shown why we shouldn't.

Years of being beaten round the head by sanctimonous people berating gay people that their relationships to do not constitute the same as a heterosexual man and wife, is enough to turn any queer against the idea.

You can't have kids, you're certainly not equal and you can't get married. God says so. The Religious Right ignoring the basic concept of Equality under the Law, peddling fear and hatred, gross stereotypes that we as Gay Men and Women know are based on nothing but a loathing of people who 'choose' not live like them.

Civil Partnerships are about equality and legal recognition. This is not marriage. Many of those who have already got hitched would not want a religious ceremony, even if hypocritical religious faiths finally recognised us.

All I know is, its a lot easier raising children with a partner who is working as hard at it as you. My wife and I made a commitment early on that we would trade early income so one of us could always be at home with our children. We were both products of big,wonderful, and very happy families. We wanted nothing to stand in the way of our children having the absolute best chance of attaining happiness and succeeding in today society. In todays society it is very,very difficult to raise a child for one individual,I am not saying it can't be done,but it is very tough. I have great respect for single moms and dads who successfully raise children, but I know for a fact I wouldn't wanna do it.

Let the record show I'm not for getting rid of marriage. I think heterosexual marriage makes many people very happy and helps provide a stable environment for children. Just because it doesn't always last until death doesn't mean marriage doesn't work. I think gays and lesbians have different kinds of relationships with different needs.

And I also say that just because it doesn't match your needs, doesn't mean it can't well serve others. I also would like to suggest that a recognized union might make some of our own very happy and might also provide a stable environment for children. For all the talk of the drying up of the offspring well, I still think there are a good number of children in need of loving himes and a fair amount of gay and lesbian people in the waiting to be good parents. And I refuse to accept that these kids are better served sitting in a state home or tossed around in a foster system than they might be under the care of two moms or dads.

Gay marriage does not threaten traditional marriage, but when proponents of gay marriage question the importance of traditional marriage which produces children(and the family), I think many on the right fear there is something more sinister than two people who love each other wanting to be married. I have read several posts in this thread questioning the need for traditional marriages and families. I really can't imagine a world without traditional families or if there would even be one, a human one. I guess I never knew this kind of thinking was prevalent or in great favor. I guess I just don't get it.

Gay marriage does not threaten traditional marriage, but when proponents of gay marriage question the importance of traditional marriage which produces children(and the family), I think many on the right fear there is something more sinister than two people who love each other wanting to be married. I have read several posts in this thread questioning the need for traditional marriages and families. I really can't imagine a world without traditional families or if there would even be one, a human one. I guess I never knew this kind of thinking was prevalent or in great favor. I guess I just don't get it.

And on that point, I will agree with Jack...about 80%. I don't think the very existence of a human world would would be jeapordized, but I take his point about the social upheaval fears generated by cries to completely abolish the current family structure. And that's why I think we are better served at leveling the field within the framework of what is here than we are calling for the complete destruction of the curent structure of society. That plea has a rather anarchistic ring to it.

Oh, my God....I've just publicly sided with Jack. Will I lose my A List standing or have my Queer Card revoked? Hold on...I think I just heard a clap of thunder in the distance.

Gay marriage does not threaten traditional marriage, but when proponents of gay marriage question the importance of traditional marriage which produces children(and the family), I think many on the right fear there is something more sinister than two people who love each other wanting to be married. I have read several posts in this thread questioning the need for traditional marriages and families. I really can't imagine a world without traditional families or if there would even be one, a human one. I guess I never knew this kind of thinking was prevalent or in great favor. I guess I just don't get it.

With a greater than 50% divorce rate... I think we're in the brave new world already.

And the nuclear family as we think of it is a byproduct of the industrial era... "traditional" families... such as exist in agricultural societies and were the primary families in all of the world until 1850 or so were the sort of "extended family" model. Several generations living together under one roof... that ended when the Industrial Revolution came.

As we enter the post-industrial era, it's only natural that family structure change as well.

I don't recall suggesting that the nuclear (which is what Jakey and Tim mean by traditional) family should be abolished. I simply believe that its hegemony needs to be broken. So people are free to form their relationships as they see fit and so one section of the community is not privileged to the detriment of everyone else.